On October 11, 1798, John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia that

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

But are we still a moral and religious people? In “The Real American Founding: A Conversation,” professors of politics David Azerrad and Thomas West help us answer that question.

In the fifth lecture of that course, titled “Morality and Virtue,” professors Azerrad and West discuss the fact that government always legislates morality, but what that morality consists of depends on the beliefs of those who make the laws. The nature of the legislative power is to tell people what they can and cannot do, what is right and wrong.

In the Founders’ understanding, they believed that government ought to support true morality and virtue. That is, morality and virtue grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God, from which they derived man’s natural rights and duties.

The Founders also believed that the laws of nature and of nature’s God, along with the natural rights and duties derived from them, were in accord with their Christian beliefs. Government therefore ought not to be hostile to Christianity, but rather should support it with laws that are friendly to it and encourage its flourishing among the citizenry.

Merz added: "I don't need to tell any of you how important it is that Leader Jeffries is serving as Speaker Jeffries when it comes time to certify the election on January 6, 2025."

Why? What have they got in mind? When it comes to certifying the election, which will be done by the incoming Congress, what difference does it make whether it's a Speaker Johnson or a Speaker Jeffries (shudder), if they are going to honestly follow the process defined by the Constitution and statute? Why is it important that Hakeem Jeffries be the speaker when this happens? What is Julie Merz driving at? What do Democrats have in mind, here? //

Democrat-controlled House will almost certainly start the Impeachment Express up again. //

SDN INTJ
an hour ago
They are planning on refusing to certify Trump's election.

DKnight SDN
43 minutes ago
Then it’s civil war time…

Biden and Harris can’t stay in the White House beyond Jan. 20th, 2025. It there’s no POTUS or VP available, who is 3rd in line for interim President? Yes, the Speaker of the House. So the one that hogties the succession directly benefits by becoming temporary king.

Like I said, civil war in the offing if that occurs.

Joe Swyers
12 hours ago
The following was written by Robert Teesdale decades ago.
I've not found it again on the net, yet. Maybe others here more adept at internet sleuthing
So I post it in full here. Please pass it along.
Maybe the censors got to it -- and you will see why when you read it.

Coming Trials
There are moments when one is chilled... when one feels the truth of a spoken word, or a gesture - or when one hears with the heart, and not merely with the imperfection of the ears.
Such a moment came to pass in my own life, many years ago.
It was a lingering summer in southern Ohio, hot and dusty and lazy in the dying afternoon. I sat in a small-town barbershop, having my hair cut and trading quiet conversation with the locals.
The conversation turned to hunting, and then to guns - and as always, to the inherent rights of our people which have always been held as a bulwark against the natural tyranny of Men.
We discussed the latest gun-control laws, and how they infringed upon those same rights. We spoke of the anger we each felt. Of the simple wrongness of it, and of the consequences of this progression.
Our words were carefully chosen - for even then, before the ascension of William Clinton to the presidency and the disgusting abrogations of freedom that followed - we were aware that such talk amongst the People was not approved of.
It was dangerous, we knew. Seditious. Militias ran amok, and the force of the law waited with eager anticipation to intervene.
Young and old, we sat there. Talking. Sharing our thoughts quietly... and asking each other where it was leading.
Someone said with a shake of the head, "I don't like where this is headed." We all nodded agreement... and then I sat in sorrowed fear as I heard the next words spoken.
An old man, sitting in a leather-and-steel chair by the entrance, leaned over and spat grimly into the dust of the Midwest that blew gently along the road outside. His words were cold, and contained a sad and unmistakable finality.
"It's coming," he said.
We all fell silent.
....

Our people are marching in the streets, demanding justice - and demanding that our rights be respected, lest they be defended by more than merely passionate arguments.
Men are no longer afraid to speak their minds. The power of fear that was held over those who dared to give voice to their patriotism has subsided... and now it is openly asked in our homes, in our shops and in our places of work.
What will happen when that line is crossed?
For there is no longer any question that it has been drawn... and no longer a question of whether to draw it was right.
In this day, when I speak to people and hear their words... when I look into their eyes and take their hands in my own - the question is no longer if revolution is possible, or if it could be done.
The questions now are how...
...and who will lead.
I fear for our nation.
For we stand at the brink. And those who bring us there, with a blind faith in their own special privilege and a dismissive contempt for the rights of the People - ignore the fearful resolve that burns within the breasts of millions of souls that will not acquiesce.
Our nation is not immune to civil war. It is not immune to the deadly and horrific strife of citizen against citizen... of brother against brother, of fathers leading sons against cousins.
There are ninety million firearm owners in America. Such a serpent should bear respecting... rather than used as a convenient scapegoat for the hypocritical lashes of those who seek to rule this nation.
And how close are we?
I see leaders arising. And rather than exhorting men to action, I see them working desperately to pacify.
I do not see them urging the loading of rifles... but rather a waiting, and a pleading for more patience and faith in the power of the vote to preserve our freedom.
I see them working to prevent bloodshed, not to instigate it. And this ominous sight fills me with foreboding.
We are not trying to create a revolution.
We are trying to stop one.
I hope that old man was wrong.
But in my heart, a sorrowed chill lingers.

Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //

The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.

If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //

The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //

Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.

Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.

A new documentary on the vice presidency gives a fresh perspective on the complications of American governance. //

No constitutional structure can know or predict every possible scenario that leads down the road of autocracy and anarchy. For this reason, Ben Franklin reportedly told a passerby at the end of the Constitutional Convention that the delegates had created “a republic, if you can keep it.” It falls on all of us — each successive generation of Americans — to rise to Franklin’s challenge. //

“The American Vice President” is available on PBS stations (check your local listings) and can be streamed online and via the PBS app.

The role of sheriff is one of the most understated positions in American governance, yet it is arguably one of the most important – especially from a liberty-centered perspective.

A sheriff who is fulfilling his or her constitutional duty stands up for the rights of citizens – especially in the face of state and federal overreach. They represent a sense of decentralization and the idea that local politics is the most important – which is why some progressives can’t stand them.

In a guest essay for the New York Times, author Maurice Chammah insinuated that sheriffs have far too much power. //

The notion that sheriffs hold too much power is indicative of a mindset that favors a top-down approach to governance rather than a bottom-up stance. They believe government at the federal and state levels should reign supreme even over local governments. In this light, the role of the sheriff could be problematic for this type of agenda. I wrote a piece on my Substack explaining how sheriffs who are doing their jobs can serve as bulwarks for liberty against government overreach. //

Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited
Sheriffs can refuse to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights – especially those laid out in the Bill of Rights.
It would seem to me that, because they took an oath to obey the Constitution, all law enforcement officers should be "refusing to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights"!

But, I guess that's just my silly take on things.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the court should even be involved in addressing the policy in the first place, saying she was concerned about the court “taking over what Congress may have intended for the agency to do in this situation.”

"I think it can't be assumed that the agency exceeds its authority whenever it interprets a statutory term differently than we would such that all we have to do as a part of this claim here today is just decide what we think a firearm is." //

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that the regulation would criminalize ghost gun sellers who might not be aware that they are violating a law, CNN reported.

“This is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it had been before,” Kavanaugh asked. “What about the seller, for example, who is truly not aware — truly not aware — that they are violating the law and gets criminally charged?”

Prelogar said prosecutors would have to prove that the seller was willfully violating the law. Kavanaugh described Prelogar’s answer as “helpful.” //

Twist Gamma
12 minutes ago
Kavanaugh nailed it at the end.

I was on board with the government's argument up until Kavanaugh made it clear that this was not a law but an interpretation of a law. Interpretations on something like this should absolutely go in the favor of the citizen, so that citizens do not become criminals without realizing it.

If guns are regulated, there is no problem with regulating, in the same way, a kit that has all of the ingredients + instructions to build a gun. It's the same thing, assuming the kit is complete. Any restriction on guns that passes Constitutional muster could equally be applied to a complete gun kit.

However, deciding that they are equivalent is the job of Congress, not the courts. And ESPECIALLY not the job of the bureaucracy.

Whether the restrictions themselves are Constitutional is a separate question, of course.

If one becomes president or vice president, you have to swear to uphold the Constitution.

But while Kamala's Stern interview was airing on Tuesday, guess what her running mate was doing on the same day?

Calling for the end of the Electoral College.

“I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go,” Walz said at a campaign fundraiser hosted at California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s home on Tuesday, according to pool reporters in the room. “We need a national popular vote that is something. But that’s not the world we live in.” //

bk
an hour ago
"This would be a great country if we could get rid of the Constitution." //

msctex
an hour ago edited
The true bottom-line reality here is that if a rumor could be sufficiently floated today which made Democrats believe the EC could work in their favor, tomorrow it would be hailed as the greatest result of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, and proof of the Founding Father's wisdom.

Yes, they would choke a bit on the last part, but they would run with it. //

Just an old soldier...
32 minutes ago
The Dems hate the Electoral college. It thwarts their schemes of total control. The tyranny of straight democracy is what they want.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. //

FlorenceNightingale
an hour ago
Good communist that he is, Tim Walz calls himself “a national popular vote guy.” So he prefers a plebiscite, the people’s required stamp of approval on a totalitarian demagogue’s rule. Slavery that you vote for.

In April 1991, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the Alexander Meiklejohn Lecture at Brown University, in which he explored the idea of the U.S. Constitution.

“Unlike any other nation in the world, we consider ourselves bound together, not by genealogy or residence but by belief in certain principles; and the most important of those principles are set forth in the Constitution of the United States,” Justice Scalia said.

Referring to the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787, Justice Scalia added,

When else has a government been established, not by conquerors dividing up the spoils, or even by political parties parceling out the power, but by a four-month seminar consisting of many of the most erudite and politically experienced individuals in the nation?

The justice went on to remind his listeners why it’s critical each generation of Americans learn, know and love our Constitution.

“[The U.S. Supreme Court] cannot save the society from itself – because in the last analysis the Court is no more than the society itself,” Justice Scalia said, adding,

The Constitution will endure, in other words, only to the extent that it endures in your understanding and affection.

anon-89ic God family country
4 hours ago edited
I don't think many Americans appreciate this danger. In banana republics, politicians, judges and lawyers are often murdered with impunity. Politicians, judges and lawyers are, for better or worse, the foundation of our Republic. Mass illegal immigration is bringing not the best of foreign cultures to our shores, but the worst of abuses of civil society. That's what Harris is promising to give more of--a world in which lawyers, judges and politicians, or the doctor who misdiagnoses your cancer, or the priest who opposes abortion, or the store keeper who didn't give you your change fast enough, is a bona fide target. For all of us lawyers who came under threat during the covid hoax for challenging government policy, this is just plain unbelievable. Lawyers having to carry guns? Lawyers having to give instructions to their spouses about what to do if they disappear on the way home from work? this is America? And that's why this story is not funny and needs to be seriously considered.

Gretz anon-89ic
2 hours ago
The erosion of the rule of law was the goal of the Marxists. Thank all of your Soros-backed cohort for making the law as ugly and meaningless as possible.

Tom Elliott @tomselliott
·
Heard Dean: “We have to change [our Constitution]. Our foundational electoral system was affected very much by slavery. This was an effort by the small states, & the slave states to make sure they didn’t lose their influence.”

9:22 AM · Sep 28, 2024 //

Dean, saying the electoral system "was affected... by slavery" is a canard. He is, of course, referring to the infamous 3/5 compromise, which was adopted to prevent the slave-holding states from having an outsized representation by including bondsmen in the tally for the basis of apportionment. That argument has made zero sense since 1865.
Yes, there is an effort by the small states to make sure we don't lose our influence. Most of the country doesn't want to be ruled by Boston, New York, Chicago, and the liberal areas of California. That's why our electoral system works the way it does; that's why the Senate works the way it does, with every state, no matter how small or large, having the same representation. That is anti-democratic by design. That is why the United States is not a democracy. We never were a democracy. We never will be a democracy. //

mopani
a few minutes ago
This wasn't ignorance any more than push polls are really telling us what people think: this is an attempt to get the low info voters outraged and influence how they view the Electoral system.

This is a setup to justify outrage for when Trump has an electoral landslide and still loses "the popular vote" because New York, California, Detroit, and Chicago count 200% of their registered voters.

There are a few unshakable rules in political discourse - only a few, but there are some that never seem to be broken. One of these rules is that it is always the left, never the right, that calls for trashing the Constitution when they don't get their way. This is a fundamental law of the universe, which shall henceforth be known as "Clark's Law of Leftists Destroying the Village to Save It." //

The latest example? As our sister site Twitchy informs us, leftist lunatic Fran Lebowitz, on Bill Maher's HBO show, "Real Time," has called for President Biden to - get this - dissolve the Supreme Court. //

Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 @BrentHBaker
·
Bill Maher guest Fran Lebowitz declares SCOTUS is “so disgraceful it shouldn’t even be allowed to be called the Supreme Court, it’s an insult to Motown...It’s Trump’s harem.” President “Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court.” #StartTheClock

10:46 PM · Sep 27, 2024 //

As for Lebowitz, I'll offer her this challenge, the same one I offer to whiners who complain about the Second Amendment:

Fran, go ahead and propose a constitutional amendment to remove the Supreme Court. Pitch it to whoever your Congressional representative is. See how far you get. Because that's what you'll have to do, and I would remind you that even if you get Congress to go along - doubtful - you will have to gain the ratification of 38 of the 50 states. //

Smiling Alley Cat
8 hours ago
As she bashed the court the audience cheered her. Let that sink in as we need to identify our enemies.

The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.

On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage at the British Crown’s illegal attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here,” declared Parker.

No one knows who fired the first shot, but at the end of the battle, eight Americans lay dead and as many wounded. This came to be known as the “shot heard ‘round the World” and the de facto beginning of the American Revolution.

Fast forward to today—current Vice President and Democrat nominee for President, Kamala Harris again voices a desire to violate an enumerated constitutional right.

The Second Amendment, arguably written with Lexington in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. That’s generating backlash among popularly elected local Sheriffs, reports The Wall Street Journal. From the article.

The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

This isn’t a “one-of,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. //

Predictably, there has been the mandatory hue and cry from the left, declaring those Sheriffs to be lawless rogues. Strangely enough, this from locales that support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Of course, their screeching is without basis. First of all, the local Sheriffs are on pretty solid Constitutional ground.

The “sanctuary” term has most often been applied to immigration. But there are several different types of sanctuary cities – one of which is related to protecting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, over 61 percent of counties in America have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun rights. This means sheriffs and other local law enforcement would refuse to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on firearms coming from state and local governments.

An example would be what happened in Illinois when its government passed an assault weapons ban. Over half of the state’s sheriffs announced they would refuse to enforce the measure. While these counties did not necessarily declare themselves to be sanctuaries, the nullification principle was in action. //

Trump’s vow to end sanctuary cities will have more ramifications than he likely intends. Sure, it would make it easier to track down illegal immigrants – perhaps dangerous ones. But what is to keep a Democratic president from using this as a precedent to crack down on Second Amendment sanctuaries? //

This is why all politics is local. The governments that are closest to us should have the most say over what rules we choose to live under – not politicians in Washington, D.C. The last thing we want is for the federal government to be empowered to go after cities whose elected leaders uphold the Second Amendment – or other natural rights guaranteed in the Constitution. //

Anna DM
8 hours ago
I respectfully disagree. Illegal aliens are, well, illegal and so cutting off the funding to localities that endorse and support illegal activities is perfectly sane and rational. Gun ownership in the US is protected by the 2A. If some localities decide to disobey the 2A (placing unconstitutional prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms) and then subunits within that locality decide to disobey the disobeying entity, that's not a sanctuary situation. That's a (very constitutional) middle finger to the entity that is disobeying the constitution. In the end, the courts generally overrule such unlawful incursions against the 2A. The two examples are not the same thing, IMO.

I say defund the sanctuary cities as regards illegal aliens. //

Terrible System
8 hours ago
2nd Amendment sanctuary cities are set up to protect clear 2nd Amendment rights. Immigration sanctuary cities are set up t0 abet violations of federal immigration law, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to enforce.

There is no legitimate comparison here.

the Electoral College was not just provided for on a whim; the framers spent many hours and days debating the way we should elect our president. Among other goals, they were trying to balance out the popular vote in order to make sure that the most populous regions didn't simply overpower the rest of the country:

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” //

There are many reasons why simply abolishing the College might sound good but actually have unintended consequences. Here are some common arguments for keeping it as it was intended:

• The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States...

• The Electoral College was created to protect the voices of the minority from being overwhelmed by the will of the majority...

• The Electoral College can preclude calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections, giving certainty to presidential elections...

Raskin and the Democrats hate the Electoral College because it tries to give a regional balance to our presidential elections and helps smaller states have a say, not just blue behemoths like California and New York.

Brian Taber @socalcg69
·
Rep. Jamie Raskin slams Electoral College as an 'obsolete' and deadly system. What an Idiot. The founding fathers knew from history that people migrate to the Coast and Big Cities. The Electoral College was for the future, like now! 😎
7:15 PM · Sep 13, 2024

etba_ss
4 hours ago
Next up is going after the DOJ, prosecutors and judges who have allowed this gross violation of the Constitution in the first place. There have to be consequences. If not, then it will happen again.

This isn't just about J6. We are seeing the same thing with prolife protesters. We are seeing with Trump on his numerous charges in several states. The "justice" system is out of control. If the people doing this do not face prison themselves, then they will do it again. At the end of the day, these defendants have lost part of their lives they can never get back, not to mention the money, stress, etc. What do the prosecutors, judges and DOJ officials lose? Nothing. Maybe a bit of embarrassment, that they really don't care about because they are heroes in their circles for trying.

Without consequences, real and severe, we will just get more of this. //

etba_ss Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
Ultimately to quote John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our ultimate problem is that we lack the morality as a society to function under our Constitution. In the end, the Constitution is a piece of paper. It is only as valid as the will of the people to ensure that it is upheld. We are not a nation of laws, but a nation of political will. If the people lack the political will to demand the Constitution be followed, then it is null and void for all practical purposes.

In the past, if someone stepped way out of line of the Constitution, such as prosecuting political enemies, the bulk of the country would not put up with it and would throw that person and their allies out of power. It harkens back to Adams' words. The people have a higher authority that politics or the Constitution. They would call out their own side if required. The left has no limits. They are Voldemort, "There is no good or evil, there is only power."

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.

While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.

Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.

These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This statement caught many by surprise because of the commonly held belief that a guilty plea forecloses any appeal. But, while a plea forecloses most issues that might be raised on appeal, it does not foreclose all of them. Lowell, an experienced and able lawyer, understands this and clearly plans to pursue an appeal to overturn Biden’s tax convictions.

In federal court, the vast majority of guilty pleas are entered pursuant to plea agreements between the government and the defendant, in which the government makes certain concessions such as dropping some charges or agreeing to limits on the sentence. In return, the government usually demands that the defendant waive the right to all appeals, and to habeas corpus filings post-conviction. //

Thus, in most cases, a guilty plea in federal court does mean that there will be no appeal.

Further, because a waiver of appeal rights is standard in most plea agreements, the federal rule of criminal procedure governing pleas requires the court to address this issue and ensure that the defendant understands that he or she is waiving the right to appeal – but only if there is a plea agreement that addresses waiving appellate rights. //

The law provides that unqualified guilty pleas do constitute a waiver of the right to appeal the vast majority of claims that there were defects or errors in the case prior to the plea. Thus, defendants cannot appeal on any ground that challenges factual guilt, evidentiary errors, procedural errors, and even most constitutional errors.

Defendants can still appeal certain kinds of claims even with a guilty plea, however. These exceptions to the usual rule that the plea waives the right to appeal basically fall into three categories.

First, a defendant can almost always appeal on the grounds that the court itself lacked jurisdiction over the case. //

Secondly, the defendant can appeal based on claims that the government lacked the power to prosecute the person in the first place. These are usually constitutional claims, such as immunity, double jeopardy, selective prosecution, or an argument that the charged statute is unconstitutional in some way. These appeals are permitted because they question the legality of the prosecution itself, not whether the person engaged in the charged conduct.

Thirdly, the law provides that the right to appeal certain defects in a criminal case simply cannot be waived by a defendant, whether there is a plea agreement or not. These issues lie at the heart of the functioning of the criminal justice system. So, for example, a defendant cannot waive the right to appeal an illegal sentence (such as one that exceeds the statutory maximum), or the ineffective assistance of the defense lawyer, or misconduct by the prosecutor in the case or the plea bargaining process.

“What the f*** are you talking about? Yeah. One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country has ever found on, if not the greatest ever. That could be a threat to America’s politics. What politics are we talking about? How could you possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?" //

Watch @JoeRogan EXPLODE on this insane New York Times article that argues the Constitution is “dangerous.”

“What the f—k are you talking about?!”

HEADLINE: “The Constitution is sacred. Is it also dangerous? One of the biggest threats to America's politics might be the country's… pic.twitter.com/GuIhQNmSEm

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 4, 2024. //

“Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional,” she wrote. //

Folks making these types of arguments rarely do so because they believe the Constitution does not make us free enough. Rather, they might prefer a document that grants the government even more authority to intrude in our lives and infringe on our natural rights. In the end, any legal document or ideology that limits this authority is dangerous only to those seeking to wield state power to force their will on the rest of us. //

DK1969
9 hours ago
I thought it was pretty simple. If you don't like/agree with Constitution, you have two options: work to amend it through the process, we already have or renounce your citizenship and leave. None of the countries comprising the rest of the world have our Constitution so, the choices are endless. May I personally suggest China, Russia, N. Korea or Iran. Choose one and go.